PRISONS (SCOTLAND.) (Hansard, 10 August 1838)

The Earl of Mansfield

felt it to be his duty to oppose the third reading of this bill, which had not been sufficiently considered. In fact, there never had been a bill of so much importance which had been so little discussed in the House; there had been a practice of late which he thought very objectionable to postpone the discussion of a bill at the proper stage to another opportunity. In this way, this bill had been delivered to their Lordships in the morning, had been read a second time in the evening, had afterwards been committed and about sixty clauses were passed in about as many seconds and now it was proposed to read the bill a third time, without any discussion, but he, 1147 Lord Mansfield) felt it necessary to make some observations on the bill which he would confine within the narrowest limits; though he feared, that he could not equal the rapidity of the Committee. Although the bill had not been discussed in the House, it was correctly stated by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) that few bills had undergone so much consideration in the Select Committee; but previously a noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleugh) who was always most attentive to any measure which was connected with the advantage of the people of Scotland, had assembled several Peers at his house, who had been employed for several days in trying to alter the bill and make it fit to pass this Session; but being unable to agree upon these improvements, they had proposed to the House to defer reading the bill a second time, Their Lordships, however, had determined to refer the bill to a Select Committee, which had had the advantage of the assistance of the noble and learned Lord and of two other noble Lords who had had great experience in Select Committees and the result was that the bill with the corrections was submitted to the House—but in the opinion of the Select Committee in an imperfect state. The bill therefore in his (Lord Mansfield's) opinion, should not be allowed to pass. To state shortly the object of the bill; it was to relieve the Royal Boroughs from the obligation under which they were now placed, of building and maintaining sufficient prisons and bearing certain expenses for the maintenance of prisoners, to erect sufficient prisons in every county, and place them under the management of a local County Board, acting under a general Board, which would have the sole management of three great General Prisons,—a part of which would be Penitentiaries in which prisoners were confined with the hope that an improvement in their morals would be effected, before their liberation.

In the constitution of this Board great alteration, and in his (Lord Mansfield's) opinion great improvement had been made but he could not see the necessity for the House passing a bill (which perhaps would be rejected elsewhere) merely to show that the House of Lords approved the principle of centralization, as recommended by a noble Lord opposite, for his own part he would not object to any plan of centralization or one mixed with local Boards, he 1148 had no prejudice upon this point, he could agree to anything which appeared to be most advantageous, but at this moment was not prepared to say, what was best. But in relieving the Royal Burghs from the obligation of maintaining the prisons, there was a clause providing that a prison should be built in each county and, that in this debtors were to be confined, now this would occur; in some places there would be a small prison, and the gaoler would not receive high wages, yet he was to find security against the escape of debtors who might be confined for a considerable sum, it could not be expected that the Royal Boroughs should remain bound as before, now that they were discharged from all interference with the prisons; the clause had just now been struck out, but no other provision had been set in its place, there would be no adequate security.

The expense of the three general prisons and of maintaining prisoners, was to be defrayed by a general fund to which the boroughs and counties were to contribute, and an assessment was to be laid on by the general board according to an estimate founded upon population and crime.

Now, against this basis, remonstrances had been made by several counties, complaining that a much larger sum would be assessed on them than if the estimate had been founded upon population only, or upon crime; the county of Perth and the county of Ayr, were nearly equal in population, but by taking an estimate on population and crime, there would be an assessment on the county of Perth, greater by 1,000l. Upon what basis the estimate should be founded there were different opinions; but the present returns were notoriously incorrect, inasmuch as some counties had returned the number of convictions, and others had given the number of committals as establishing the amount of crime.

Again, the sum is to be assessed on the counties and the burghs, in equal proportions; but this question arises, should this be the uniform mode of assessment, or should not the particular circumstances of each burgh be taken into consideration, the amount of the burgh revenues which is stated in the preamble as a ground for relieving them, as well as the uncertainty of the contributions of counties.

Should a borough like Dundee for instance, winch has lately built a gaol, at an expense of 22,000l., to which the county 1149 did not contribute, be assessed in the same proportion as a burgh in another county, in which a gaol has been erected but the cost defrayed by the county and the burgh in certain proportions? in equity it appears, that there should be a difference—but as to the amount of the common good and property of these boroughs as to the manner in which they have fulfilled their obligations, the House was not sufficiently informed; and, it was his intention to move for returns which would afford the information, but which would require sometime to prepare.

In conclusion, he found it to be his duty to press their Lordships not to consent to the third reading; as to the rejection of the bill in another place, that should have no effect upon their decision. No bill ought to leave this House, but in so perfect a state that their Lordships would consent to pass it, if the sole right of making laws were vested in them. This bill was by the admission of all, imperfect. He moved, that this bill be read this day three months.